The we are all equal and everyone should have the same amount of money and lifestyle is a Utopia that goes against our innate nature, it just wont happen and wont work. Great idea esp if we were all equal and wealthy;). The Human being is to greedy and selfish for it to work.

I don't think that is true, actually. If you look at histories and anthropologies of the earliest human societies around the world you will find that they were egalitarian and did not have social stratification at all. The reason for this was that those societies operated at subsistence level and did not produce economic surpluses. Everything was shared and there was no private property; women were not second class citizens as they still are today. These societies had a very slow rate of technological change and lasted for tens of thousands of years, far longer than any other subsequent social system such as feudalism or capitalism.

It was only when economic and technological development reached the stage of allowing surpluses to be produced (e.g. extra food being the most important, also clothes and ornaments) that social differentiation started to take place. Granaries to store the food meant that certain people were needed to defend that surplus (warriors), certain people were needed to control and distribute it (e.g. chiefs, or priests and other administrators). And it is also the case that these surpluses often provided the motive for warfare (if some groups crops had failed then they would raid their "neighbours"). Also, as the population increased, warfare also occurred over hunting grounds and trading rights (e.g. American Indians were fighting each other long before the Europeans turned up).

So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything. This would help to explain why capitalism makes so many of us unhappy and ill. But I don't actually think there is such a thing as "innate human nature". I think we all learn our behaviours from the world that we live in (i.e. from our environment, from the people around us, school, TV etc). And because modern capitalism emphasises competition and materialism (buying and owning stuff), most of us grow up thinking this is normal and it has always really been the case - and socialist ideas sound either highly undesirable or completely unattainable to most people.

The we are all equal and everyone should have the same amount of money and lifestyle is a Utopia that goes against our innate nature, it just wont happen and wont work. Great idea esp if we were all equal and wealthy;). The Human being is to greedy and selfish for it to work.

I don't think that is true, actually. If you look at histories and anthropologies of the earliest human societies around the world you will find that they were egalitarian and did not have social stratification at all. The reason for this was that those societies operated at subsistence level and did not produce economic surpluses. Everything was shared and there was no private property; women were not second class citizens as they still are today. These societies had a very slow rate of technological change and lasted for tens of thousands of years, far longer than any other subsequent social system such as feudalism or capitalism.

It was only when economic and technological development reached the stage of allowing surpluses to be produced (e.g. extra food being the most important, also clothes and ornaments) that social differentiation started to take place. Granaries to store the food meant that certain people were needed to defend that surplus (warriors), certain people were needed to control and distribute it (e.g. chiefs, or priests and other administrators). And it is also the case that these surpluses often provided the motive for warfare (if some groups crops had failed then they would raid their "neighbours"). Also, as the population increased, warfare also occurred over hunting grounds and trading rights (e.g. American Indians were fighting each other long before the Europeans turned up).

So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything. This would help to explain why capitalism makes so many of us unhappy and ill. But I don't actually think there is such a thing as "innate human nature". I think we all learn our behaviours from the world that we live in (i.e. from our environment, from the people around us, school, TV etc). And because modern capitalism emphasises competition and materialism (buying and owning stuff), most of us grow up thinking this is normal and it has always really been the case - and socialist ideas sound either highly undesirable or completely unattainable to most people.

warspite1

I'm 100% with wodin on this.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty - Horatio Nelson 1805.

So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything.

If I believed in this bucolic summary of yours as a faithful re-creation of early life, I'd be overlooking the fact that life then was nasty, short and brutish more often than not. Infant mortality, youth mortality, hell-adult mortality-was astronomically high by today's standards. Average life expectancy was less than 30 years of age for many of these subsistence hunter gatherers.

You'd also be overlooking the fact that the most 'innate human nature' is to war. Plato was right-only the dead have seen the end of it. So, we 'shared' this quite readily in the past too. No thanks.

I'm also not buying the 'no caste system existed' argument for these older civilizations. Caste systems have been around for thousands of years in East Asia that predate much of the subsistence hunter-gather activity you've described.

Like it or not, life today for much of the "Western" world is as good as it's ever been historically. Fewer people die from warfare now than have died in the preceding centuries, especially on a per capita basis. We are living longer, healthier and more fruitful lives largely devoid of the grinding physical toil and stifling drudgery of our forefathers just a few generations ago. I consider myself incredibly fortunate to be alive today and wouldn't trade it for life in the past under any circumstances.

100% disagree. I didn't have much so I worked damn hard for everything I got. I had nothing but achieved great success. Could I do this under any other system other than the free world I think not. Frankly it makes me sick from people who have the "poor me" attitude. You are what you make of yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

The we are all equal and everyone should have the same amount of money and lifestyle is a Utopia that goes against our innate nature, it just wont happen and wont work. Great idea esp if we were all equal and wealthy;). The Human being is to greedy and selfish for it to work.

I don't think that is true, actually. If you look at histories and anthropologies of the earliest human societies around the world you will find that they were egalitarian and did not have social stratification at all. The reason for this was that those societies operated at subsistence level and did not produce economic surpluses. Everything was shared and there was no private property; women were not second class citizens as they still are today. These societies had a very slow rate of technological change and lasted for tens of thousands of years, far longer than any other subsequent social system such as feudalism or capitalism.

It was only when economic and technological development reached the stage of allowing surpluses to be produced (e.g. extra food being the most important, also clothes and ornaments) that social differentiation started to take place. Granaries to store the food meant that certain people were needed to defend that surplus (warriors), certain people were needed to control and distribute it (e.g. chiefs, or priests and other administrators). And it is also the case that these surpluses often provided the motive for warfare (if some groups crops had failed then they would raid their "neighbours"). Also, as the population increased, warfare also occurred over hunting grounds and trading rights (e.g. American Indians were fighting each other long before the Europeans turned up).

So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything. This would help to explain why capitalism makes so many of us unhappy and ill. But I don't actually think there is such a thing as "innate human nature". I think we all learn our behaviours from the world that we live in (i.e. from our environment, from the people around us, school, TV etc). And because modern capitalism emphasises competition and materialism (buying and owning stuff), most of us grow up thinking this is normal and it has always really been the case - and socialist ideas sound either highly undesirable or completely unattainable to most people.

warspite1

I'm 100% with wodin on this.

_____________________________

"I thank God that I was warring on the gridirons of the midwest and not the battlefields of Europe" Nile Kinnick 1918-1943

So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything.

If I believed in this bucolic summary of yours as a faithful re-creation of early life, I'd be overlooking the fact that life then was nasty, short and brutish more often than not. Infant mortality, youth mortality, hell-adult mortality-was astronomically high by today's standards. Average life expectancy was less than 30 years of age for many of these subsistence hunter gatherers.

You'd also be overlooking the fact that the most 'innate human nature' is to war. Plato was right-only the dead have seen the end of it. So, we 'shared' this quite readily in the past too. No thanks.

I'm also not buying the 'no caste system existed' argument for these older civilizations. Caste systems have been around for thousands of years in East Asia that predate much of the subsistence hunter-gather activity you've described.

Like it or not, life today for much of the "Western" world is as good as it's ever been historically. Fewer people die from warfare now than have died in the preceding centuries, especially on a per capita basis. We are living longer, healthier and more fruitful lives largely devoid of the grinding physical toil and stifling drudgery of our forefathers just a few generations ago. I consider myself incredibly fortunate to be alive today and wouldn't trade it for life in the past under any circumstances.

_____________________________

"I thank God that I was warring on the gridirons of the midwest and not the battlefields of Europe" Nile Kinnick 1918-1943

Our distaste for Socialism , Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism. isn't based on how wide or small of a political spectrum we or the world live in presently. Its based on the false and warped rationalism that feed these ideologies. So, being a just at the beginning level or more deeply warped as the world is. In either case, this is very disturbing. Knowing, how these ideologies discount the human person. Also, more disturbing still is how these negate God and attack his followers.

True. Marx was commissioned by RothSchild Order agent & provocateur, Moses Hess to concoct a scheme that would trigger civil wars, subvert aristocracies & annihilate Christians. Fortunately God has other plans & the Reds will not escape justice for their heinous crimes.

Incredible and bizarre as it sounds, humanity is indeed the victim of a diabolical conspiracy.

War, depression and genocide in the past century were not accidental or inevitable but the result of a malevolent design.

Shocking evidence is a 1938 Stalinist police (NKVD) interrogation of a founder of the Communist International, Christian G. Rakovsky, 65, who was facing the firing squad for plotting to overthrow Stalin.

The 50-page transcript of his interrogation, dubbed "The Red Symphony," was not meant to become public. It confirms that the Rothschild-Illuminati planned to use Communism to establish a world dictatorship of the super rich.

This is perhaps the most explosive political document in modern history. It reveals why the Illuminati financed Hitler and then tried to destroy him, and why Stalin made a pact with Hitler in 1939.

Christian Rakovsky was a veteran Communist insider. Born Chaim Rakeover in 1873, he studied medicine in France before becoming a revolutionary. He was the leader of a terror group that attacked government officials. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSrakovsky.htm

In 1919, Lenin put him in charge of the Soviet Ukraine government. He successfully kept the area for the Bolsheviks during the Civil War. Stalin appointed him Russian ambassador to Paris in 1925,

Rakovsky belonged to the powerful Trotskyite faction that took their orders from the Rothschilds. Many of this group were shot in Stalin's 1937 Communist Party purge.

MIDNIGHT INTERROGATION

Thus, the circumstances of the midnight interrogation Jan. 26, 1938 were very dramatic.

What could Rakovsky say that would save his life?

Rakovsky appears to use the tactic of "deceiving with the truth." He wins trust by revealing the truth but leaves some of it out. He tries to impress Kus'min that he and Trotsky represent an invincible power he calls the "Capitalist-Communist Financial International."

He confirms that the "revolutionary movement" was designed to enlist support by pretending to serve mankind's moral and collective ideals. The real aim, however, is to divide society, undermine established authority and create totalitarian rule.

"Revolution" really means, "overturning" Western civilization.

"Christianity is our only real enemy since all the political and economic phenomena of the bourgeois states are only its consequences," Rakovsky says. (Griffin, p. 264)

Peace is "counter-revolutionary" since it is war that paves the way for revolution.

Rakovsky refers to the Illuminati as "they" or "them." He claims he does not know them but I suspect he does.

He explains that the "Illuminati" is a Masonic secret society dedicated to Communism. Significantly, its founder Adam Weishaupt took the name from "the second anti-Christian conspiracy of that era, gn osticism." (249)

HOW THIS GRIPPING ACCOUNT SURFACED

The interrogator was one of Stalin's cleverest agents, Gavriil Kus'min known as "Gabriel." Apart from him and a hidden sound technician, a doctor Jose Landowsky was the only other person present.

Conscripted by the NKVD to help "loosen the tongues of detainees," Dr. Landowsky was sickened by the many tortures he witnessed.

The interrogation of Rakovsky, however, was cordial. Dr. Landowsky doubts if the mild euphoric he put in Rakovsky's drink had much effect.

The interrogation, conducted in French lasted from midnight until 7 a.m. After, Kus'min ordered Landowsky to translate the interview into Russian and make two copies.

The content was so mind boggling that Landowsky made an additional carbon for himself. "I am not sorry that I had the courage for this," he wrote. (279) (The Bolsheviks had shot Landowsky's father, a Tsarist colonel, during the 1917 revolution.)

A Spanish volunteer later found the manuscript on Landowsky's dead body in a hut on the Petrograd front during World War Two. He took it back to Spain where it was published as "Sinfonia en Rojo Mayo." in 1949.

A person with the nickname "Yamaguchi" has posted the first half of "Red Symphony" on the Internet at http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/symphony/red1.html The whole transcript was published in English in 1968 as "The Red Symphony: X-Ray of Revolution." You can find it in Des Griffin's "Fourth Reich of the Rich." (1988) I recommend this book.

REVELATIONS

Rakovsky gives his interrogator an astonishing inside view of modern history in order to prove that his sponsors control the world.

"Money is the basis of power," Rakovsky says, and the Rothschilds manufacture it thanks to the banking system.

The "Revolutionary Movement" was an attempt by Meyer Rothschild and his allies to protect and extend this monopoly by establishing a New World Order using the "revolutionary movement."

According to Rakovsky, "The Rothschilds were not the treasurers, but the chiefs of that first secret Communism...Marx and the highest chiefs of the First International ... were controlled by Baron Lionel Rothschild, [1808-1878] whose revolutionary portrait was done by Disraeli the English Premier, who was also his creature, and has been left to us [in Disraeli's novel 'Coningsby.']" (250)

Lionel's son Nathaniel (1840-1915) needed to overthrow the Christian Romanoff Dynasty. Through his agents Jacob Schiff and the Warburg brothers, he financed the Japanese side in the Russo Japanese War, and an unsuccessful insurrection in Moscow in 1905. Then he instigated the First World War, and financed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Rakovsky says he was personally involved in the transfer the funds in Stockholm. (251-252) (CONT)

_____________________________

Germany's unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economy from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit. — Winston Churchill

You'd also be overlooking the fact that the most 'innate human nature' is to war.

No, it is not a "fact", it is just your opinion.

quote:

I'm also not buying the 'no caste system existed' argument for these older civilizations. Caste systems have been around for thousands of years in East Asia that predate much of the subsistence hunter-gather activity you've described.

The first human societies were hunter-gatherers. Caste, or class systems, developed later as the productive capacity of humankind increased (often by regular farming). There was no basis for social differentiation in the earlier subsistence economies. Just one example here . . .

“Traditionally, the San were an egalitarian society. Although they had hereditary chiefs, their authority was limited. The bushmen made decisions among themselves by consensus, with women treated as relatively equal. San economy was a gift economy, based on giving each other gifts regularly rather than on trading or purchasing goods and services.”

You'd also be overlooking the fact that the most 'innate human nature' is to war.

No, it is not a "fact", it is just your opinion.

No more so than your overly broad allegations about human inherent tendencies that are socially programmed to share everything. Utter rubbish. If we can share the good in ourselves, then we can certainly share the bad in equal parcels.

Sorry, but I don't think civilization corrupted man or brought out the worst in him. Quite the opposite.

Surprise, Surprise Rogo disagrees with me (I think not sure who he disagrees with)...though I'm not sure what working hard has to do with anything..I'm sure we all work hard. My Mum and dad started with nothing dad leaving school at 13. He ran three business in the end and they did pretty well for themselves but boy did they put in the hours..no holidays for 15 years and start at 4.30am and finish at 7.00pm everyday. Though they finished early on a Sunday. I worked in one form or other from the age of 11 up until my degenerative illness got the better of me when I hit 30. See people who say oh you just have to work hard and you will achieve success seem to forget that alot of people out there can't because they are ill or disabled, also some people work damn hard but only ever mount up to cleaning toilets ete and struggle to make ends meet.

Anyway Stockwell pete hmm..the idea we where somehow civilised and loved everyone back in pre history seems odd considering all evidence points to us wiping out the Neanderthals. Yes we got on within our own small group of what around 30 people..coming together around once a year with other groups to find new mates which was away of curbing interbreeding they think one or two would leave the group to "marry" someone in another small tribe and they'd also take someone in again to mix up the gene pool. On the whole though I'm sure to god we have fought back then also strong evidence of cannibalism aswell. We are a violent species and our closest cousins the chimpanzees are a very violent ape aswell. If communism was going to work it would already have happened. Each time it was tried greed and lust for power got in the way and you ended up with a Dictatorship that really had nothing todo with Socialism at all.

Something I think is wrong with Human beings at the moment is that our brains developed faster in evolution terms than anything else known in the living world. Something like 40% quicker. What I think is as an ape we have suddenly acquired this huge brain power but we never had time to really understand or get used to it..we never gained any wisdom to deal with this massive brain. This is why I think we took the wrong step years ago. If our brain had slowly evolved at a normal rate maybe we'd have a greater understanding of why we have been given it and actually use it for the purpose it was given to us. Instead of becoming wise and possibly guardians of all life on the planet..we built stuff and invented taxes and Office work, all that came from our beautiful imaginations...office work..call centers..tax..money. Surely that can't be why nature or god or who ever you believe in gave us this brain such a powerful tool I feel wasted because we never had time to grow with it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogo727

100% disagree. I didn't have much so I worked damn hard for everything I got. I had nothing but achieved great success. Could I do this under any other system other than the free world I think not. Frankly it makes me sick from people who have the "poor me" attitude. You are what you make of yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: stockwellpete

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

The we are all equal and everyone should have the same amount of money and lifestyle is a Utopia that goes against our innate nature, it just wont happen and wont work. Great idea esp if we were all equal and wealthy;). The Human being is to greedy and selfish for it to work.

I don't think that is true, actually. If you look at histories and anthropologies of the earliest human societies around the world you will find that they were egalitarian and did not have social stratification at all. The reason for this was that those societies operated at subsistence level and did not produce economic surpluses. Everything was shared and there was no private property; women were not second class citizens as they still are today. These societies had a very slow rate of technological change and lasted for tens of thousands of years, far longer than any other subsequent social system such as feudalism or capitalism.

It was only when economic and technological development reached the stage of allowing surpluses to be produced (e.g. extra food being the most important, also clothes and ornaments) that social differentiation started to take place. Granaries to store the food meant that certain people were needed to defend that surplus (warriors), certain people were needed to control and distribute it (e.g. chiefs, or priests and other administrators). And it is also the case that these surpluses often provided the motive for warfare (if some groups crops had failed then they would raid their "neighbours"). Also, as the population increased, warfare also occurred over hunting grounds and trading rights (e.g. American Indians were fighting each other long before the Europeans turned up).

So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything. This would help to explain why capitalism makes so many of us unhappy and ill. But I don't actually think there is such a thing as "innate human nature". I think we all learn our behaviours from the world that we live in (i.e. from our environment, from the people around us, school, TV etc). And because modern capitalism emphasises competition and materialism (buying and owning stuff), most of us grow up thinking this is normal and it has always really been the case - and socialist ideas sound either highly undesirable or completely unattainable to most people.

No more so than your overly broad allegations about human inherent tendencies that are socially programmed to share everything. Utter rubbish. If we can share the good in ourselves, then we can certainly share the bad in equal parcels.

But I didn't say that at all, did I? I wrote,

"So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything. This would help to explain why capitalism makes so many of us unhappy and ill. But I don't actually think there is such a thing as "innate human nature". I think we all learn our behaviours from the world that we live in (i.e. from our environment, from the people around us, school, TV etc). And because modern capitalism emphasises competition and materialism (buying and owning stuff), most of us grow up thinking this is normal and it has always really been the case - and socialist ideas sound either highly undesirable or completely unattainable to most people."

It should be clear from this that I am saying that human beings are capable of a wide range of behaviours and attitudes and that we are not hard-wired to be co-operative any more than we are hard-wired to be competitive. It all depends on what type of social environment we grow up in - that is my point.

Anyway Stockwell pete hmm..the idea we where somehow civilised and loved everyone back in pre history seems odd considering all evidence points to us wiping out the Neanderthals. Yes we got on within our own small group of what around 30 people..coming together around once a year with other groups to find new mates which was away of curbing interbreeding they think one or two would leave the group to "marry" someone in another small tribe and they'd also take someone in again to mix up the gene pool. On the whole though I'm sure to god we have fought back then also strong evidence of cannibalism aswell. We are a violent species and our closest cousins the chimpanzees are a very violent ape aswell. If communism was going to work it would already have happened. Each time it was tried greed and lust for power got in the way and you ended up with a Dictatorship that really had nothing todo with Socialism at all.

Well, in pre-history humankind definitely had a very different type of civilisation from what it has now and surely the "mentalities" (i.e. peoples' outlook and their ideas of "common-sense") were very, very different also. It is unlikely that homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals as you are suggesting. The latest thinking from some anthropologists suggests that homo sapiens were much more socially integrated than neanderthals and collectively were better able to resist climate change in their time that saw Europe get much colder quite suddenly.

The only point that I have made so far is to suggest that human nature is not fixed or innate - and that human beings are capable of a wide range of behaviours. If you are someone who wants to insist that human nature is fixed then surely it would be fixed as the human nature that was appropriate for the first human societies i.e. hunter-gatherers. After all, these first societies lasted for tens of thousands of years while capitalism has only been around for a few hundred years - a mere pimple on the backside of human existence, in fact.

And if we are hard-wired for war as you seem to be suggesting, why is it that new recruits into the army have to undergo months of de-humanising training before they are deemed ready to kill another human being? And why is it the case that more American soldiers have died from suicide than enemy fire in recent times? Why are they suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in large numbers if it is natural for humans to kill?

No more so than your overly broad allegations about human inherent tendencies that are socially programmed to share everything. Utter rubbish. If we can share the good in ourselves, then we can certainly share the bad in equal parcels.

But I didn't say that at all, did I? I wrote,

"So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything. This would help to explain why capitalism makes so many of us unhappy and ill. But I don't actually think there is such a thing as "innate human nature". I think we all learn our behaviours from the world that we live in (i.e. from our environment, from the people around us, school, TV etc). And because modern capitalism emphasises competition and materialism (buying and owning stuff), most of us grow up thinking this is normal and it has always really been the case - and socialist ideas sound either highly undesirable or completely unattainable to most people."

It should be clear from this that I am saying that human beings are capable of a wide range of behaviours and attitudes and that we are not hard-wired to be co-operative any more than we are hard-wired to be competitive. It all depends on what type of social environment we grow up in - that is my point.

Sorry, of the numerous qualifiers in your previous post, I overlooked the one 'if' you indicated there that completely changed the meaning of your post and obscured your point altogether. I think your conflation of 'innate human nature' with early social structures misses the point. Innate human nature: greed, love, egalitarianism, hatred are just that. Social structures, mores, laws and civilizations are not equivalent. No civilization, political system or other construct of modernity is equivalent to an innate human nature.

So:

quote:

"So, given that the first human societies were egalitarian and lasted longer than any other social system

OK. Perhaps this was true. But these perfectly egalitarian systems fell by the wayside in modernity, typically in the presence of plenty / surplus. A perfectly reasonable counter could be that these perfectly egalitarian systems were not useful in larger populations or civilizations and that other governmental systems needed to 'grow'.

Just because a governmental system has the historical footprint doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to modernity. We could argue about the benefits of bronze metalwork, but the truth is that we (as a species) are past that. We're past the bronze age with its technologies or lack thereof and its systems. We've advanced as a species. No going back to what may have been popular 20,000 years ago.

quote:

, then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature"

I think we'd all agree that we have many innate human natures. None of which can be directly translated to a system of governance.

quote:

it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything.

No, it must not be the case. Being a co-operative species in our ancient past is not applicable to extension in the present. Helping our bronze-age neighbors harvest a crop or birth some yak may have been done out of a sense of self-help, co-operation or other communal good. But it's not applicable to sending food aid in the present to a country one hasn't seen (or heard of) for 'the greater good'.

We aren't programmed to share everything. We are programmed to do what needs must to preserve ourselves and our own. Sometimes that involves helping others-particularly if you get something out of the deal.

When there is no personal 'good' derived from personnel sharing, we generally don't do it. All systems of modern governance are this way. Socialism and communism moreso than most.

Sorry, of the numerous qualifiers in your previous post, I overlooked the one 'if' you indicated there that completely changed the meaning of your post and obscured your point altogether. I think your conflation of 'innate human nature' with early social structures misses the point. Innate human nature: greed, love, egalitarianism, hatred are just that. Social structures, mores, laws and civilizations are not equivalent. No civilization, political system or other construct of modernity is equivalent to an innate human nature.

But I haven't said that i think that there is any such thing as "innate human behaviour" - in fact, I am arguing the complete opposite.

quote:

OK. Perhaps this was true. But these perfectly egalitarian systems fell by the wayside in modernity, typically in the presence of plenty / surplus. A perfectly reasonable counter could be that these perfectly egalitarian systems were not useful in larger populations or civilizations and that other governmental systems needed to 'grow'.

Just because a governmental system has the historical footprint doesn't mean it's in any way comparable to modernity. We could argue about the benefits of bronze metalwork, but the truth is that we (as a species) are past that. We're past the bronze age with its technologies or lack thereof and its systems. We've advanced as a species. No going back to what may have been popular 20,000 years ago.

Yes, OK. I accept most of this argument. But I was responding to people here who were saying that socialism is an unviable system because of innate human nature - in opposition to this view I think we are both accepting that human nature is a product of specific social (historical) circumstances.

The point about society producing a surplus is this - at first, the surpluses were small and only a few people could benefit from them (chiefs, warriors, priests, administrators perhaps), but as humankind has progressed through history (from ancient slave societies to feudalism and now capitalism) the surplus has rapidly increased in size so that now it would be possible to provide everyone on the planet with enough food, shelter, education, leisure etc if only things were shared out more fairly. Capitalism has been the most economically progressive form of human society - but it has certain drawbacks. It is inherently crisis prone (i.e. booms and slumps); it is based on competition that regularly leads to war (just think how many wargames there are! lol); it is destroying the planet (global warming); a small minority of people are very rich while much greater numbers starve to death unnecessarily or die from simply treated diseases; and so on and so forth. The question is - can humankind do better than this?

quote:

"it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything."

No, it must not be the case. Being a co-operative species in our ancient past is not applicable to extension in the present.

I am sorry but you have lopped off the second part of my sentence from the first part and thereby you have destroyed its meaning. I actually wrote . . . then if it is true that we have an "innate human nature" it must surely be the case that we are a co-operative species that is "socially programmed" to share everything."

My point was that if people are going to insist that there is "innate human behaviour" (I am not one of those people who would do this) then the most likely form that "innate human behaviour is going to take is the co-operative form that generally existed in the first type of human society (i.e. the hunter-gatherers). These societies lasted for tens of thousands of years whereas capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years as a global system. Do you see what I mean?

I appreciate the reasoned argument and clarification stockwellpete. We're (mostly) in agreement then.

As for whether this is 'the best humanity can do'? Who knows? I know we can do worse. A whole lot worse. Socialism, Maoism and Marxist-Leninist Communism and their ideological equivalents are examples IMO. None of them answer the very real concerns that you raise for the planet, and they also introduce additional the instability of non-representative forms of governance into the equation.

I look at this like Maslow's Heirarchy. Early forms of governance were built upon self-susenance: food, water, shelter, safety. Later forms moved through comparatively advanced individual (and social) needs. Empathy, altruism, and other 'higher order functions' can be found in many different governmental representatives, depending on the society they reflect.

Churchill said it well. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time."